Kuribo64
Views: 8,228,766 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
04-20-18 06:23 AM
Guest:

0 users reading Fake News. Aka, the next generation censorship | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - Fake News. Aka, the next generation censorship New reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Spacey
Posted on 02-10-17 05:31 PM (rev. 2 of 02-10-17 05:32 PM) Link | #81316
A lot of people today think that communsim is the awnser to a lot of the problems caused by capitalism thats not properly regulated, see: the black block (Anarcho Communists AKA the most dilusional people on the planet). And many people think that capitalism is somehow the worst thing on the planet.

Communism was meant to dismantle social classes, but it actually creates them. This is a fundamental flaw with communism. Communism requires a lot of government control, which leads to a social class of governmental elites, unless you are talking about anarcho-communism (ill touch on it and why its absolutely insane in a bit).

Communism also fucks the working class but pretends like its helping them (cognative dissonance is a hell of a strong force). What you are doing is going to these working class people and saying "Right, all of these things that you worked hard for and belong to you. They do not belong to you anymore. There is no private property, only public property". Does anyone honestly believe that any working class person would support that? Note that this also pairs with governmental control, as the working class generally doesnt want the government snooping in their personal buisness.

Now I want to explain why I think anarcho communism is such an awful idea and just un feasible. Anarcho communism blatantly ignores human nature. Humans naturally form heirarchies, its part of us as a species. This is what creates governments, its part of why we'ev had them ever since we started banding together in such large numbers. Naturally rules and laws would form out of nessesity to keep people civil and after that governments would be formed to deal with creating, enacting, and enforcing these laws. That knocks out the anarchy part of it. Now pair that with communism. Somone is going to have to enfoce all those ideas since not everyone is going to agree with communism. Guess who? Government. You need government to have communism, but anarcho communism assumes there is no government making it self contradictory. Anarcho communsim has all of the problems of communsim plus all of the problems of anarchism, and anarcho capitalism is someone even worse.

/rant

That felt pretty good after seeing all the capitalist bashing on this board tbh. I personally think that regulated capitalism (as long as the regulations are fair) is a really nice way of doing things, along with some socialist ideas to keep people from falling too far behind as long as its done right.

Oh and before I forget, inb4 "not real communism".

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 02-10-17 05:42 PM Link | #81317
No one here is defending communism though. And also, we aren't living in a true capitalist society. We're really living in capitalism with socialist hints (government subsidies, job security nets, food stamps, etc.).

On topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/06/liberal-fake-news-shift-trump-standing-rock

Even the left-leaning side is promoting fake news. Just ugh.

Spacey
Posted on 02-10-17 06:01 PM Link | #81318
I assume communism because mostly becase its the most prevelent and commonly picked alternative to capitalism. Its much like the Left vs. Right mentality. However I was and am wrong to assume that those who hate capitalism are instantly communist, as socialism has stepped up as another alternative.

On Topic:
Both sides have been pushing fake news for quite some time. It wasn't just the right making up fake news all this time, its also been the left. Both sides are honestly full of shit, which makes sense since polotics is "Shit Slinging: The Game". Fake news is pretty much a new way of saying "highly biased" or "unreliable news source" but with more politically charged meaning and a bit more impact. Its really a result of both sides having much more people in the extremes than before.

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 02-10-17 06:11 PM Link | #81321
I still identify myself on the left, but you're not going to get anywhere by criticizing only the right. The left has its pretty fair share of crap, though I disagree with the right on much more issues. I believe the right still makes up more fake news, but I never assumed left-leaning fake news didn't exist. And I wouldn't even begin to think about that since I'm aware of the BS from the left like Bill Maher and ultra-touchy feminists (mind you, I'm a feminist myself) who get bothered that Mario is a sexist genre because in Super Mario Run you have to unlock her before you can use her. I mean, I don't like Peach as a character because she's nothing I like how a female character should be portrayed, but I'd find other ways to criticize Mario for depiction of female characters, such as the bunny group in Super Mario Odyssey.

Marionumber1
Posted on 02-10-17 07:35 PM Link | #81323
The left (I don't really consider people like Hillary Clinton to be on the left, but that's the terminology) has even made up fake news about fake news. Much of what they classify as fake news is really progressive and anti-establishment outlets that dispute the corporate agenda of mainstream outlets. The idea of "fake news", which is partially legitimate, has been perverted into being used as a cudgel to discredit political opponents. Most notably, the Washington Post published (and then had to subtly retract) a McCarthy-esque blacklist that did just that.

Spacey
Posted on 02-10-17 07:48 PM (rev. 2 of 02-10-17 07:49 PM) Link | #81324
Posted by Marionumber1
McCarthy-esque blacklist that did just that.

When you think about it you can draw a lot of parallels between polotics today and the cold war.

During the cold war everyone was a communist and if you were even suspected to be one it hurt you a lot. Today if you are a Trump supporter and someone finds out you can similarly be discriminated against, of course to a lesser degree (for now).

In the cold war you had the red scare and fear mongering about communism and nuclear war.
Lots of fear mongering about how the right and conservatives will destroy the world today.

These are just two examples of it and are off the top of my head, im sure if I spent some more time thinking about it I could come up with much much more. Its a lot like the cold war but with the sides flipped, instead of the left wing ideas being demonized and fear mongered, its right wing ideas. Of course this isn't as bad as the red scare in the 40s, but if the mass media keeps going in the direction its going in its really a matter of time.

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

StapleButter
Posted on 02-10-17 08:37 PM Link | #81330
if you're talking about USSR, 'communism' was mostly used as an excuse for the State to own and control everything. unfortunately, any attempt at communism within a State is doomed to end up like that.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Spacey
Posted on 02-10-17 08:47 PM Link | #81332
Im not talking about the USSR, im talking about communism as an idea and political belief. It is so fundamentally flawed it doesnt ever have a chance of working peacefully. Unless you are ok with purging the non believers, communism isnt for you. Socialism attempts to fix these ideas but still falls short in some places (free things everywhere, but who pays for it? Is the answer to that question fair?). Communism will not ever work. Anarcho Communism is even worse, and is self contadictory; you cant have something that necessiates heavy governmental control with no government.

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

StapleButter
Posted on 02-10-17 09:19 PM Link | #81333
and yet, we're in dire need of an alternative -- capitalism is causing the destruction of the planet we live on.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Spacey
Posted on 02-10-17 09:34 PM Link | #81334
Argument is literally "I dislike x, so we need y; I wont tell you why x is bad using specific details that are not based on me being ideologically entrenched. I will continue to assert that x is bad simply on the priniple that it is x, without ever attempting to legitimize any critisisms I make. It would mean having to think about them futher and would implicate that y may have problems as well.". This argument boils down to "no u", and your ideas about capitalism are comparable to the neo nazi tin foil hat theory that the jews somehow secretly rule the world.

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 02-10-17 10:02 PM Link | #81335
Posted by Spacey
In the cold war you had the red scare and fear mongering about communism and nuclear war.
Lots of fear mongering about how the right and conservatives will destroy the world today.

I hear a lot about "liberals will destroy the world" and accusations that Obama is a communist socialist Marxist libby rall. I personally won't be surprised if conservatives are accused of being backward because that's just people not willing to communicate. I myself am very frustrated at liberals who can't keep their cool and call conservatives shitbags simply for being conservatives rather than disagreeing with them. Though I find some conservative beliefs unacceptable like criminalizing gay marriage or opposing transgender rights and I strongly disagree with a lot of them, such as opposing universal healthcare or repealing Obama care.

And extreme right-wing ideals are as dangerous and arguably numerous since we have people like Steve Bannon, Mike Pence, and Milo Yinnapoulus who froth at the mouth at trying to demonize minority groups like blacks, women, gays, and Jews, and it's not different back then as it is today.

Posted by Marionumber1
The left (I don't really consider people like Hillary Clinton to be on the left, but that's the terminology) has even made up fake news about fake news. Much of what they classify as fake news is really progressive and anti-establishment outlets that dispute the corporate agenda of mainstream outlets. The idea of "fake news", which is partially legitimate, has been perverted into being used as a cudgel to discredit political opponents. Most notably, the Washington Post published (and then had to subtly retract) a McCarthy-esque blacklist that did just that.

Fair thing. "Fake news" really is a snarl word at this point, and it sucks that I can't trust even the left-wing press, though when I see articles like that Guardian one I posted, I tend to avoid "AlternativeMediaSyndicate", "countercurrentnews", and even "LearnProgress" sounds ideaologically slanted. I don't mind left-wing bias but they've got to be fair and provide WHY they have such a bias as long as they back up what they claim.

Spacey
Posted on 02-10-17 10:35 PM Link | #81338
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I hear a lot about "liberals will destroy the world" and accusations that Obama is a communist socialist Marxist libby rall.

All I've been hearing lately on the internet is hate for Trump and praise of liberalism. Im not even a conservative (if right at all, slightly right of center) and I find this unfair. I suppose its maybe that we look in different places, or that we live in politically different parts of the us (red state v blue state), but honestly I dont see this demonization of the left coming from anywhere except 4chan (who hates everyone so go figure) and r/The_Donald. Take a look at the front page of any major website and you will find praise of liberalism.

Posted by LeftyGreenMario
Though I find some conservative beliefs unacceptable like criminalizing gay marriage or opposing transgender rights and I strongly disagree with a lot of them, such as opposing universal healthcare or repealing Obama care.


Trump has promised to protect gay rights and has held firm to that idea. I dont see that much hatred for gay people in modern conservativism, same with transgender. The word I think you are looking for is religious, and I want to make this as clear as possible, the right is not synonomus with religion. It was this way in the past, you cant deny that fact, but ideas change over time and these ideas have updated and revamped. This doesn't mean you can't find individual cases as im sure you can, but the majority of conservatives dont shackle themselves to religion anymore. Its an antiquated idea no matter the religion, and both sides of the political spectrum have realized this. Obamacare had a lot of bad economic implications that screwed small buisness owners, having everyone be able to afford healthcare (private or socialized) is a good idea, but it needs a proper implementation. I suggest watching the Bernie Sanders Vs Ted Cruz debate on this, it was pretty informative and had good points from both sides.

Posted by LeftyGreenMario
And extreme right-wing ideals are as dangerous and arguably numerous since we have people like Steve Bannon, Mike Pence, and Milo Yinnapoulus who froth at the mouth at trying to demonize minority groups like blacks, women, gays, and Jews, and it's not different back then as it is today.


Milo is jewish though, and gay, and has a prefrence for black people. It seems that you lump him in with the others because you have heard from the media that he is these things, and rather than listening to one of his talks and hearing what he actually has to say, you just assume those things are true. I don't even like Milo, he is pretty much the definition of an attention whore and a lot of what he says is intentionally polarizing/outlandish as well as some of his ideas just being awful, but I think he should at least be treated fairly and properly represented.

I will agree with you on Steve Bannon and Mike Pence though, not that they demonize all minority groups, they do demonize some which doesnt make it right, but please represent them properly even if you dont like them or their ideas. Regardless, both of them have fairly outlandish ideas that make me question why Trump chose them when he actually did make some good cabinet picks (General Maddis comes to mind). Pence is probably assassination insurance, but Steve Bannon is more of a strange choice that doesn't make much choice and just seems like a middle finger to the media that shat on Trump the entire election.

Ive realized that I am now at a point where I am defending people that I do not agree with and even dislike because of how they are so poorly represented, which is due to the on topic stuff of fake news. Not nessesarily fake news even, just heavily biased news. Sorry about my posts being long as well, I try to keep it short but there is a lot to talk about here.

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 02-10-17 11:37 PM Link | #81340
My grouping of Milo was not to say he's a racist, but I tend to group racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-Semite as part of the "alt-right" views because they all have irrational hatred in common. Sorry if that's a bit misleading, but Milo is a complete asshole and he doesn't ever have anything valuable to say and if I want thoughtful, but provocative points, I'd find someone else. That being said, I don't condone violent Berkeley protests at all since they just reinforce his points and make him appear as a victim when he's really just a tasteless jerk (jerk is an understatement) and I really don't want to see his face in public if it's not accompanied with intense criticism and ridicule heaped on him. We're supposed to counter his stuff with good arguments, not violence. Given his irrational and terrible behavior, not hard to write him off as a scumbag that has nothing important to say, but is dangerous, and he should be taken seriously because he can mobilize and legitimize hatred.

"Religious conservatism". I apologize if I associate conservatism with religion, but it's the tremendous effort of the Religious Right (which is MAINSTREAM among many conservatives, but not all, but it's mainstream) who try to associate opposing gay rights as "traditional family values" which fits "conservatism" nicely. There is a very sizeable amount of Republican congresspeople who tried to put religion back at schools and try to instigate religion and oppose secularism. Saying that it's "antiquated" is not quite correct because the religious right had and still has a big influence on our politics today, seeing that we're getting ANOTHER "religious freedom" bill recently from Republicans to try to make teachers teach creationism as a science in our schools. And don't get me started on Republican congress people who really hate gays and I believe Mike Pence is very representative of how I view the conservative Republicans (the Republican Party itself is far-right since they demonize anyone for not being conservative enough even though their views is parallel to the far-right in Europe) and not some radical right-wing outsider. Note that Donald Trump himself, is not openly religious compared to Mike Pence, so I don't find his ambivalence on some issues that religious conservatives get passionate on all that surprising. Still, this guy wants to criminalize abortions and defund Planned Parenthood, which religious conservatives don't like at all, so there's that.

Now, there are many aspects to conservatism, as we have socially conservative and economically conservative, but social conservatism's typical aspect is above. While gay rights is slowly getting acceptance, we still have a big amount of anti-gay people swarming around in the Republican Party that try hard to get around the Supreme Court decision under the guise of "religious freedom", giving people the right to discriminate and deny gays service. Anyhow, religiousity is strongly tied to your political views, and I think it's no mystery that social conservatism is strongly associated with how religious you are.

Obamacare is flawed, but repealing it is just going to make tons of people lose coverage and Republicans had 8 eights to come up with a plan. I think it's pretty clear that, under the guise of "health freedom" and "choice", they just want to repeal Obamacare because of ideology rather than the reality that many people need healthcare and that Obamacare helped many, many people enroll in it, even though it's a flawed program. Why I came to that conclusion, it's that they have nothing to offer in place of Obamacare aside from Obamacare under a different name or a gutted Obamacare that's inferior in every way.

I dont see this demonization of the left coming from anywhere except 4chan (who hates everyone so go figure) and r/The_Donald. Take a look at the front page of any major website and you will find praise of liberalism.

Fox News and the entire Republican Party demonizes the left ALL THE TIME; historically, we had a Red Scare and we are living in it legacy where "liberal" is equivalent to "socialist" and that's supposed to be really, really bad. You get Obama being called a liberal when he's hardly one. And if you want more and more wingnutty, go to Daily Stormer, Breitbart, GamerGate circles, Conservapedia, Heritage Foundation, American Family Association, Family Research Council, Media Research Center, Accuracy in Media, the MRA, John Birch Society, Daily Mail, American College of Pediatricians and the very term "liberal" is historically a snarl word, where you get few people who self-identify as a liberal in the polls. You also get "Cultural Marxist" as an insult to the perceived liberal bias in media (yeah people say that media is liberally biased and I honestly don't see that) and I myself would probably be accused of that.

Of course, I keep saying that I'm a liberal, so perhaps you're getting the "praise of liberalism" from me in this site. But I've seen liberalism used as a pejorative in many places, and I've seen conservatives also being used as a pejorative, though I frequently browse left-wing places and am part of communities that happen to be left-wing, so I am somewhat reinforced by liberal views.

Spacey
Posted on 02-11-17 07:45 AM Link | #81342
At this point it seems like you have contrsucted a strawman of republicans in your head. Its because a lot of social media is pushing these ideas (see: paragraph 2). Im gonna talk numbers to attempt to burn down this strawman, hold on to your pants.

First lets discuss the boogyman of the religious right.
Your assertion that republicans are often religious because many of them are conservative is simply wrong. Onto the cold hard numbers. There is no doubt that republicanism is on the rise, if it wasnt you wouldnt see things like the election of Trump. However it was reported in 2015 by pew research that people in general were less religious, with unaffiliated growing by +6.7%[1]. If more people are becoming republican and less are becoming religious one can assume that non religious republicans are also on the rise. However im not comfortable making unbased assumptions on things like this, so lets look a bit closer. Looking closer we can see that many red states (Texas, Wyoming, and Nebraska) are on average about 72% Christian, while blue states (California, New York, and Oregon) are about 61% religious on average. There is an 11% difference, but lets look at some trends as well to see how these numbers are changing. The best example is California vs Texas as they are powerhouses of the left and right respectively. Between 2007 and 2014 in California the frequency of prayer and the importance of religion in ones life dropped only 1%[2] for both while in Texas both of these dropped by about 3-4%[3] in that time. Importance of religion is dropping faster in a red state, which makes sense since there are more religious people, however this does show how these red states are becoming less religious. To Note: my point here isnt to say that democrats are more religious, but to show that republicans are less religious, the other numbers for democrats were to give context.

Oh and the assertion that the right is the big bad deomonizer of the mostly sane liberals is also wrong. In 2016 there were cases where conservative news and the dnc leaks were being censored by facebook purposefully [4] [5]. Most if not all main stream media is also liberal. "muh fox news!!!!!!!" is not an argument. The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, The Gaurdian, Vice, AJ+, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Google, Most of Hollywood, Most of Silicon Valley. These are not all of the organizations, and they are not small organizations, they are multi-billion dollar industries and million dollar companies. You mention the Daily Stormer and Breitbart simply assuming that yeah anyone who is republican uses these. Im sure that my former comp sci teacher, and eminent woman of color republican, reads the Daily Stormer and Breitbart (inb4 she is called an uncle tom). The major difference here are the size and reach of these groups. You cannot escape facebook and google on the internet, and both of them are notably left wing. Get over yourself when it comes to the red scare, that was in the 40s and both liberal and conservative ideas have changed since then; I simply draw paralells to show how ridiculous some of the hate boners for republicans and the right are getting.

However pew research does show that republicans are more likely to think that democrats are a threat to the nations well being[6], meaning that I concede that yeah there is a large part of the repulican party that thinks this, but I think with the changes in ideas of republicans since mid 2015 that this has shifted slightly. This does not mean its a good thing or that the right is someone getting better, no it doesnt.

Im not going to argue the obamacare point until you watch the Bernie v. Ted Cruz debate or just generally do more research into what obamacare actually means other than free healthcare for those who cant afford it, because thats not the only idea there. In fact I think obamacare is a good idea, but implemented in a poor way that fucked small buiness owners. One of these ways is if you have more than 50 employees you have to pay for their healthcare. A lot of the time thats not an option for small buisness owners as they dont make enough money to afford that so they either hire people part time or dont hire new people at all.

So lets conclude. Republicans are becoming less religious, Decocrats are staying about the same. More Republicans hate Democrats than Democrats that hate Republicans. The left has major backing from much bigger sources than the right, scream about fox news and the daily stormer all you want its nothing compared to the powerhouses of facebook and twitter. Obamacare is a good idea but needs modifications as to not fuck people over, and im hoping that the Trump administration doesnt fuck up their new healthcare plan too much so that it can be fixed by a hopefully less partisan congress and senate in the future.

Anyway, I dont write this to be mean or because im a republican or because I hate the democrats. Funnily enough I dont agree with a lot of republican ideas and often find myself agreeing with the left quite a bit. I Dont like the idea of privatley owned prisons and think that the government should intervene a bit more on some things (making sure workers are not being fucked by the people they work for, things like this) but I dont want to see republicans being misrepresented in such ways as they have been lately. The thing is im doing exactly what I would want republicans and conservatives to do if the democrats and liberals were being unfairly critisized and misrepresented (dont say they are, they really arent).

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 02-11-17 04:58 PM Link | #81350
I don't disagree that the demographic is slowly become less religious, but it still remains that religion plays a big role in American lives, much more so than Europe, and religious fundamentalism is more mainstream and more associated with the right than you think. America as a whole is more tilted on the right compared to typical west European countries. Atheism is still the least trusted minority group based on this poll, which surpasses even Muslim and Mormons.

Two-thirds of voters say that it is very important (39%) or somewhat important (28%) for a presidential candidate to have strong religious beliefs.

Nearly half (48%) of voters say they would be very uncomfortable with an atheist serving as President.


I also did not exactly say that "they are religious BECAUSE they're conservative" but that there is a positive relationship between the two, not that one causes the other. It's a correlation, but not a causation.

Also, your conclusion that "people are less religious so I'm wrong that Republicans are associated with religion because Republicans are on the rise" misses several key points about why Republicans succeed despite having a far-right base: Republicans are responsible for much gerrymandering (Democrats also do this, but Republicans are more guilty) and Republicans win seats in mid-term elections and Republicans tend to do better when voter turnout is low. And remember, there is stigma of being called a liberal thanks to a history of Communist scares. Because of this, I see that you are using that conclusion based on these two trends, but I think it's a flawed conclusion.

I also didn't say that the right is an evil wing that demonizes, but that the right does its share of demonizing the left as much as you accuse the left of demonizing the right and how liberals somehow "praise liberalism". While I don't condone Huffington Post (mainly for its anti-science views), putting things like Washington Post and The Guardian on the same line as Fox News is very odd since Fox News has actively lied (add up those percentages) with quote mining and using videos from an entirely different context and Fox News viewers are more misinformed than those who don't watch any news. Sure, there are some disputes to those studies (such as the question if Fox News actively misinforms its viewers or its viewers already have preconceived misconceptions and Fox News just reinforces its viewpoints), but on more clear-cut issues like global warming, Fox News viewers reject the scientific consensus. The assertion that "most of mainstream media is liberal" I find odd because America as a whole leans more to the right than most other industrialized countries. Issues include gun control, healthcare, secularism, abortion, creationsim in classrooms,

I also find your implication of Google, Twitter, and Facebook as "very liberal" as odd as well since Twitter has been abused by both sides to harass people they don't like. Milo is one person, but GamerGate is another thing (a biggie since Twitter enabled GamerGaters to harass people). Facebook is pretty much the same thing, though anti-vaxxers have abused its reporting algorithms and due to its nature as a business that has reckless disregard for privacy. Tell me exactly how Google and Facebook are left-wing Because I don't see it. And you focused on my Fox News mention like a laser and complain (or heavily imply) that I focus on it like a laser, while also bringing up Daily Stormer and Breitbart. What about those others? And if you know anyone that reads them and takes them as fact, then I'd stay away from those people or try to steer them away from that garbage.

Get over yourself when it comes to the red scare, that was in the 40s and both liberal and conservative ideas have changed since then

That's just not a good argument. You haven't refuted at all on my point that we are living in its legacy. Attitudes on Communism simply don't go away; they linger for a while. Red-baiting is still a thing; Glenn Beck and in 2009, Republicans had the nerve to file the resolution to call Democrats socialists and Obama has been called a socialist Communist cultural Marxist; if the Red Scare was only "in the 40s", why do they insist on using that as a snarl word? It's the primary reason we can't have single-payer healthcare and why people on the right want to privatize other government organizations like the EPA and defund NASA because they just don't like government.

just generally do more research into what obamacare actually means

You think I don't know a thing about Obamacare? I've seen criticism from both sides for this thing, and I'm not super enthusiastic about it, but its real issue is that IMO it doesn't go far enough and I think it's lucky it made it this far as it is since Republicans really hate this thing for reasons I'm not convinced. The Republicans have NO plans to fix ACA. They had 8 years to come up with something, and they demonstrated nothing other than talking points. At best, they'll just rebrand it and not do anything about it. At worst, they'll gut it and cause people to lose their healthcare. I don't think the employer mandate is a huge issue, but it further convinces me that ACA is flawed, so we need to actually patch its issues, not repeal the damn thing.

Marionumber1
Posted on 02-11-17 08:10 PM Link | #81353
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
Republicans are on the rise" misses several key points about why Republicans succeed despite having a far-right base: Republicans are responsible for much gerrymandering (Democrats also do this, but Republicans are more guilty) and Republicans win seats in mid-term elections and Republicans tend to do better when voter turnout is low.


Another big factor is election manipulation. Bush's 2000 and 2004 elections were both stolen, as was Trump's 2016 election. And in every biennial election since 2000, there have been flagrant voter suppression tactics and significant electronic vote shifts to Republican candidates.

Spacey
Posted on 02-12-17 12:46 AM Link | #81354
Posted by LeftyGreenMario
Also, your conclusion that "people are less religious so I'm wrong that Republicans are associated with religion because Republicans are on the rise" misses several key points about why Republicans succeed despite having a far-right base: Republicans are responsible for much gerrymandering (Democrats also do this, but Republicans are more guilty) and Republicans win seats in mid-term elections and Republicans tend to do better when voter turnout is low. And remember, there is stigma of being called a liberal thanks to a history of Communist scares. [Note: you just proved yourself wrong in the last sentence. If when voter turnout is low republicans do better, it would imply that most people are liberals making them the majoraty, which would mean that you are either A) Stigmatizing yourselves and your own ideas or B) There is no stigmatism]. Because of this, I see that you are using that conclusion based on these two trends, but I think it's a flawed conclusion.

You are asserting that all republicans have a far right base without backing this up by taling about any of their ideas, now you will argue gay rights and transgender rights and ill tell you again that the current republican administration and senate doesn't seem to be trying to mess with that. They really are not as bad as far right as you make them out to be. A quote comes to mind, "When you are so far to the left, everything looks like its to the right". I do agree that gerrymandering is shit though, and is just a greedy government (left or right it doesnt matter) way of getting what they want.

Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I also find your implication of Google, Twitter, and Facebook as "very liberal" as odd as well since Twitter has been abused by both sides to harass people they don't like. Milo is one person, but GamerGate is another thing (a biggie since Twitter enabled GamerGaters to harass people). Facebook is pretty much the same thing, though anti-vaxxers have abused its reporting algorithms and due to its nature as a business that has reckless disregard for privacy. Tell me exactly how Google and Facebook are left-wing Because I don't see it.

Name me the last time that a progressive twitter account was banned for illegitamate reason. As in, they didnt break the terms of service yet were still banned. Now name me the last time this happened to a conservative. You will notice a difference. Also the fact that you think twitter somehow supported gamergate is ridiculous, as a lot of these people were either banned, or not actually harassing people. This doesn't mean there are not exceptions but that you ignore what twitters response to this use of their site was. I see you also ignored the articles about Facebook actively censoring conservative news and posts about wikileaks also being censored. However you mention Facebook without addressing them by mentioning reporting alrogithms, by which I assume you mean the reportintg system because if not you are implying that Facebook is baised towards the left with how their computer system decides to ban things. Reporting system makes more sense in context, regardless though, no, how many of those pages that get reported actually get taken down. They are often reinstated with no issues. Google has had similar problems with banning and restricting youtube channels they dont agree with. Dave Cullen (whom I used to watch for tech videos but have since dropped since he started becoming more and more political) had monetization removed from some of his videos for seemingly no other reason than that Google disagreed with him. It wasn't copyright either, no claims were leveled against these videos, they simply lost monitization with no explanation.

Posted by LeftyGreenMario
And you focused on my Fox News mention like a laser and complain (or heavily imply) that I focus on it like a laser, while also bringing up Daily Stormer and Breitbart. What about those others? And if you know anyone that reads them and takes them as fact, then I'd stay away from those people or try to steer them away from that garbage.

I didn't say that I did know people who read these sites (the entire point of mentioning my one republican teacher was that she was prominent and respected in the ranks without reading these sites) but yknow what, even if I did that is not a bad thing. In fact, it would be a good thing. It would mean that I am willing to listen to other peoples views even if I don't agree with them. Heck you can be friends with people you disagree with, it makes conversation and debate more interesting and isnt hard if you dont have trouble looking past peoples political veiws at who they are as people rather than excommunicating for wrong think. It also tends to make your arguments better as you actually know what the opposition thinks rather than just assuming it. Anyway, I was making the point that with Breitbart and Daily Stormer in particular are not considered normal conservative news (well Breitbart used to be, but isnt as much anymore as its ideas have gotten much more extreme). Many republicans that I have met read tings like CNN. When it comes to fox news, you mention it whenever you talk about conservative news. I talk about it when I talk about conservative news. I wonder if its because its one of the most popular conservative news sources and is very prevelent in todays society.

I put places like The Gaurdian and The Washington Post and The HuffingtonPost in the same category as Fox News beacuse of the category I was putting them in. The category wasnt innaccurate sources, it was biased news and the amount of support they get, is it really hard to understand that news sources that get some of the most traffic on the internet being liberally biased shows that the left is not stigmatized. If it was these sites would not be multi million dollar buisnesses with massive amounts of traffic.

Posted by LeftyGreenMario
I don't think the employer mandate is a huge issue, but it further convinces me that ACA is flawed, so we need to actually patch its issues, not repeal the damn thing.

I agree that simply fully repealing it was a bad idea (although it hasnt been fully repealed afaict as pre-existing condition clause is still in effect but correct me if im wrong), but now that it has already happened and not much can be done, I hope that at least some good can at least come out of it.

In the end we will never come down to an agreement (as such this will probably be one of my last posts other than one or two smaller form responses) and it comes down to a big fundamental difference:

You somehow think that there is a stigma and a negative connotation to being called a liberal. This is simply not true, and it denies reality. At first I wasn't sure if I was misinterpreting you or not, but you have been more clear in later posts. We live in a time where some of the most wealthy internet news sources are liberally biased, many colleges are liberally biased, and something like the womens march not only happened but was praised by all of these liberal news sources and you somehow got it in your head that liberals are demonized by the media? This is an absolutely absurd idea. You have hundred thousand dollar buisnesses based off of reporting the news with liberal spins, yet have the audacity to insinuate that the left is in someway oppressed?

I do not think the left is opressed, I dont think they are oppressing (other than people like the black bloc, but every side to the political die has these people) and I think the same about the right. I noted a few posts ago that polotics is pretty much shit slinging: the game, and how both sides are awful and neither is opressing the other; but to deny obvious facts like the fact that liberal media is an economic powerhouse that dominates as the most prevalent news is intellectually dishonest. What I find absolutely ironic about all of this is that I have held off on writing something like this or the communism rant on here for a long time because I was afraid someone might think im right wing or a republican, even though im simply showing them the common courtesy that I expect them to show me, which has the potential to ruin me on the internet because republicans and conservatives are very much disliked (often called nazis even if they really are not, and what makes that even worse is #punchanazi, because now you have labled me as a nazi and said that physical violonce towards them is ok).

inb4 "But I didnt claim nor imply it was stigmatized or had a negative connotation" even though its mentioned right at the start of the post and in the past you call it a quote "snarl word" which would like buzzword imply negative connotation.

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

Marionumber1
Posted on 02-12-17 01:58 AM (rev. 2 of 02-12-17 02:02 AM) Link | #81355
Posted by Spacey
What I find absolutely ironic about all of this is that I have held off on writing something like this or the communism rant on here for a long time because I was afraid someone might think im right wing or a republican


The communism rant was entirely pointless, though, since absolutely nobody was advocating for it. It's the epitome of binary thinking to assume that criticism of capitalism is a defense of communism. That would be like saying criticizing the Democrats is defending Republicans (an idea you reject in this very quote).

As for the rest of what you've said, I do tend to agree that liberals aren't oppressed. In fact, as a self-identified progressive on the left, I think they have too much influence. Most of what they fixate on is identity politics, touting how socially progressive they are while ignoring issues that more directly affect people's lives. Democrats hide behind social progressivism in order to justify selling out to corporations in the same way that Republicans do. So we may get politicians who are oh-so tolerant on social issues, but nothing of substance changes: stagnant wages, rising income/wealth inequality, destroyed labor rights, outsourcing, deregulation, inaccessible healthcare, and endless wars.

Even this social progressivism is wholly America-centric. Democrats act like champions of gay rights, but they unequivocally support regimes like Saudi Arabia that murder homosexuals. They act like champions of women's rights, yet our disastrous military interventions (which Democrats enthusiastically oversee) have been especially imperiling to women and girls in the countries where we intervene. And Hillary Clinton exploited Haiti after it was devastated by natural disasters, turning the "rebuilding" process into a corrupt bonanza of contracts for her Foundation donors, while Haitian women were forced into sex slavery in order to scrape by.

But the mainstream media isn't willing to consider these angles. I know people call it the "liberal media", and I suppose it fits with conventional liberal (i.e. Democratic) thought, but it's really a right-wing and pro-war perspective (just like Hillary Clinton's). You can see it lamenting things like Trump's travel ban, while being a cheerleader for policies that harm all Americans and oppressed minorities in other countries.

This is also why I took issue with the women's march. Not because its stated idea was bad, but because most of these people were simply butthurt about Hillary and thought she'd be a wonderful president and defender of women's rights. Ultimately, liberals have too much control over the narrative and are using it to stoke outrage on social issues while ignoring more crucial issues like jobs and healthcare. This is also why Trump was far more successful than he probably should have been - he made people feel like he cared about their livelihoods, even if he was a fraud - and why Democrats shot themselves in the foot by sinking Bernie's campaign. All the Democrats can think of for why they lost is "racist white voters", a completely unproductive lashing-out that will only cost them more votes. (For what it's worth, I don't think Hillary truly lost the general, but the election should not have been anywhere near as close as it was.)

Spacey
Posted on 02-12-17 06:17 AM Link | #81356
This. Exactly this. One of the points ive been trying to make is that the mainstream news supports mostly liberals, though I do call it liberal news and only because thats what it attempts to sell itself as rather than what it really supports. They are often self contradictory though as you mentioned, supporting things like war in other countries and ignoring some american foreign policy that really does hurt people in other nations.

I do agree though that the communist rant was pretty pointless, I wrote it because of people today satarting to support things like the black bloc and these violent anarcho-communist protests and posted about it in a place it doesn't bleong and frankly makes little sense to post it (however I suppose with fake news, iirc there was an article claiming that the black bloc is actually right wingers who simply pretended to be the black bloc and invaded these protests to make the protests look like riots).

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 02-22-17 09:36 PM Link | #81508
Posted by Marionumber1
Democrats hide behind social progressivism in order to justify selling out to corporations in the same way that Republicans do. So we may get politicians who are oh-so tolerant on social issues, but nothing of substance changes: stagnant wages, rising income/wealth inequality, destroyed labor rights, outsourcing, deregulation, inaccessible healthcare, and endless wars.

That's the problem, the Democrats' voter base is more to the left than they are and it's nice to imagine that they are "progressives" but they're really corporate elites who resemble something comfortably between center and right and still bend backward against some more clear-cut issues like science (vaccinations and GMOs and not treating global warming as seriously as it should). It's frustrating to learn about the crap they do like Obama's record deportations, the authorizations of the violations of privacy, broken promises on Guantanamo Bay, and of course the military drones.

I myself have been on the women's march to protest Trump and his administration and NOT support Hillary or the Democrats all while trying my best to support Planned Parenthood and social policies.

I also don't think liberals are oppressed, and nobody's arguing that around here. But their political power is a bit diminished and I still worry about people like Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos running around with power.
Pages: 1 2 3 4

Main - Serious discussion - Fake News. Aka, the next generation censorship New reply

Page rendered in 0.052 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 26, rows: 229/229, time: 0.024 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.